[mananaysiempre]

As Jens Gustedt points out[1], the following intentional unsigned overflow works perfectly for downwards iteration (even when length is 0 or SIZE_MAX), though it looks a bit confusing at first:

  for (size_t i = length - 1; i < length; i--) ...

You are also free to start at any other (not necessarily in-bounds) index, just like with ascending iteration.

[1] https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/a-praise-of-size_t-...

[salawat]

Principle of least surprise violated.

Also, that behavior is not guaranteed. The programmer would need to be aware of how the particular machine in question actually handles that.

Then again, that's C.

[sersnth]

Unsigned integer underflow and overflow are both guaranteed to wrap by the C standard.

[411111111111111]

Uh I'm confused but don't know c++.

why doesn't that loop end instantly?

I mean length - 1 < length should always be true, right?

Or does it only terminate when the number underflows? Terribly confused here

[Jtsummers]

For loops are translatable from:

  for(initialize; condition; increment) { ... }

to:

  initialize;
  while(condition) {
    ...
    increment
  }

(more or less, some scoping things not encompassed by the above; this is also how pretty much every for loop in a C-syntax language works) The condition of a for loop is equivalent to a while loop's condition. So yes, length - 1 < length will be true on the first iteration, which is fine because the loop continues as long as that condition is true.

What the above approach takes advantage of is that when underflow eventually happens you'll have this condition:

  MAXINT < length

Which will terminate it for all possible values of length.

[bobthepanda]

It‘s an unsigned int, so past 0 it overflows back to the maximum

[411111111111111]

Ooh, i see. I wasn't aware that they under/overflow at 0 when they're unsigned. Thanks for broadening my horizon!

[naavis]

It loops while the condition is true. When an underflow happens, it stops being true.

[msk-lywenn]

It’s a condition to run, not a condition to stop

[wizofaus]

That was my reaction - why should anyone think it might be the latter? Are there languages that do have such a syntax without explicit keywords ("do...until")?

[msk-lywenn]

I think lisp or scheme does. I was often confused by that when I was playing with it

[billforsternz]

The loop continues until i transitions from 0 to 0 minus 1. 0-1 in this case actually doesn't equal -1 since size_t is an unsigned type, instead it wraps around to be the largest possible positive integer instead. TLDR; yes as you speculate it terminates when the number underflows.

[xxs]

the footnote [1] should be [0], just for the sake of this very topic.

Seriously though, while the idiom does work for unsigned integers, it's a bad idiom to learn [makes code reviews harder]. The post-decrement one in the loop body works with everything (signed/unsigned), and it's well known.